If i went to a store lets say.. Bob's big ass tires.. and on the front it says No black and Arabs allowed.. I would probably be like well this guy is
a douche and goto Jim's big ass tires because jim likes everyone..

Sooner or later Bob will be out of business because he was a douchebag and jim will have all the business he can have and them some..

Free market at its best.

In the real world, this scenario would turn out to be the opposite of your conclusion.

All the causation folks would shop at "Bob" store, and the minorities would go to "Jims" store as a result of that sort of sign.

People tend to prefer to shop among "birds of a similar feather". So "Bobs" store would enjoy more business obviously to having the higher
customer-base. Per statistics, "Jims" store would also have the disadvantage of higher thefts then does "Bobs" which means loss of profits.

A smart businessman would look around him and see all these segregated businesses then say to himself, "I know how I can make some real money". So
he removes the 'No minorities allowed' sign from his store. All the non-racist whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, etc... will all go to his store.
He would soon have the largest customer base because the other idiots are segregating their business.

One by one the segregated businesses will either go bankrupt or desegregate.

Greed can be good because without greed that first businessman would never have changed his store policies. It's really a domino effect, one domino
falls then the rest fall too.

Or, a smarter businessman would open several stores all catering to a different class. Now, instead of one store open to all, you have ten stores
creating ten times the number of jobs and thus stimulating the economy even more.

The quality of a governing system depends more on the quality of the people implementing it than it does on the form of government. A monarchy or
dictatorship can be a fine place to live, if the quality of the implementors is high. A representative republic can be a lousy place to live if the
implementors are of low quality.

Here's the problem with un-restrained Libertarianism, especially in the current US culture of everybody only looking out for themselves:

Two privately owned companies:

Jim-Bob's Electric Utility company and Achmed's Food Store. They are located in a sparsely populated area, and are the only game available for
electricity or food.

Jim-Bob don't like "the cuhlerds", so only white people get electric power to their homes (it's Jim-Bob's company, right? He can refuse to sell
to whoever he wants right?).

Achmed doesn't care much for white people, especially now that he has to have his own electricity generation capability, so Caucasions are not
allowed to shop at his food store. The only one in 50 miles in any direction. So white people have no place to buy food. Hey, it's Achmed's store,
right?

And just for the hell of it, Juan owns the only gas station in 50 miles from anywhere. At this point he don't care much for whites OR Arabs, so only
Latinos now can buy gas at his station.

Or failing that, sure, Jim-Bob will sell electricity to non-whites... at 10 times the rate as whites. Achmed will sell food to whites, they can pay
about 10 times what non-whites pay. Same for Juan... if you are not Latino you can buy gas at his station at the "non-Latino only" pumps, which
start at $15.00 per gallon.

Given a healthy culture, clearly this scenario is not likely. The current culture in the US is anything but healthy.

Agree with the comments that this is all politics and nothing about correcting social ills. FedGov is unconstitutionally huge and invasive, treating
its own citizens as more of an enemy than other nations. To tell private business whom to do business with, beyond selling hi-tech to our enemies, is
against the law of our land.

But the matter of racism is bigger than that. I personally never hated anyone, esp. on such a ridiculous basis as genetics. And I do believe that
everyone should have the freedom to go wherever they want without being subjected to threatened hostility or verbal harassment, even if allegedly done
in jest. But I draw the line at forcing people to go to "sensitivity training" because that is thought control imposed by the state. If a person
hates short people, bald people, white people, etc. then so what? As long as they don't harass, threaten, or assault the people they hate, then who
cares? FedGov must never legislate anything beyond its constitutional powers because, as history shows now more than ever, it can't handle it. (As
Reagan put it, "Congress is like a baby: an alimentary canal with an insatiable appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the
other.")

Another wise person whose name escapes me at the moment (I believe it was originally said in ancient Rome) said that once the public coffers are
opened to give to charity, there will be no end to the raiding of public funds, and that's exactly what has happened. The lesson is that even if some
cause is deemed worthy enough to make an exception to the Constitutional limits of the federal government, we must not do so and instead allow the
charities to do what they do best and on the basis of freely given donations. We have become a bloated nanny state, which means the dependents will
always vote for whoever increases their free money, to the point where many of them consider it a basic right to be demanded.

I agree, but wouldn't a possible solution be for each of them to recruit new businesses to cater to their own people, making healthy competition?
It's much the same with doctors for example. Often they are recruited to remote areas so all of them don't stay in the big cities.

(Besides, I like the idea of being off any sort of huge grid, electrical or otherwise. Self-sufficiency has its advantages.)

Originally posted by SaberTruth
I agree, but wouldn't a possible solution be for each of them to recruit new businesses to cater to their own people, making healthy competition?
It's much the same with doctors for example. Often they are recruited to remote areas so all of them don't stay in the big cities.

Sure. However, given the genesis of such competition, I'm not sure it would be 'healthy'. More like a series of armed camps for each ethnic group.
Or worse yet, further concentration of power into the hands of one group or another. ('Power' in this case being contol of resources important or
vital to life in the culture).

And to use your medical example, which is a good one, what if the only doctor in the area was Dr. Goldburg. Really good doctor, really knows her
stuff. But she only treats Jewish women. All men, and all non-Jews, must find medical care somewhere else. Probably in the same mythical town 50 miles
down the road...

(Besides, I like the idea of being off any sort of huge grid, electrical or otherwise. Self-sufficiency has its advantages.)

There's too many what if's in Ron Paul's scenario. There cannot be limitless freedoms in any society, freedoms should exist until they impose on
someone elses freedoms. Discrimination is against the law and should be...no matter which you slice this, in the end if you're agreeing with THIS
PARTICULAR statement that Ron Paul made then you are arguing pro-segregation and pro-racism. Do we really want to go backwards 50 years? What about
the ramifications? Are people looking to start a new race war? A new civil war?

Honestly what exactly is the point even in making such a statement? Why make racially charged statements when we have finally come far enough to elect
a black man into office? This is insanity I can't even believe it was said or that people actually support the statement. In 2011 you are saying it's
ok to deny service based on ethnicity?

Originally posted by Kali74
Honestly what exactly is the point even in making such a statement? Why make racially charged statements when we have finally come far enough to elect
a black man into office? This is insanity I can't even believe it was said or that people actually support the statement. In 2011 you are saying
it's ok to deny service based on ethnicity?

Based on observation, it is my opinion that between the miserable leadership the US had when 9/11 happened, followed by the election of a black man as
President, racism has exploded in the US. It is FAR from dead or even sleeping.

I believe Paul is attempting to tap into this explosion of, call it xenophobia, as it is not entirely race-based.

Sword,
If many knew the history behind the civil rights bill and what it really stood for at the time it was past then I think few would vote for it now.
A couple of questions for you to look into to help understand this.
1) who started the kkk?
2) How many times prior to 1964 did a civil rights bill come to the floor and which party brought it there?
If you are able to answer these two questions, then you may then want to ask yourself what changed in 1964. The answer may surprise you.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.